People decide blah, blah, blah. Under subjective morality, who cares? I don’t need popular approval, I don’t need the backing of the powers that be; scientific, social or otherwise. How do I justify not killing them all? It seems like a shit idea to me. That is far as it goes, I do as I wish and debate the moral points ultimately only unto myself.

All of the given axioms are meaningless to subjective moral systems. They’re merely changes of the social order, which count for nothing beyond what one imparts to them.

I’m double posting because I forgot the page I was looking at was from like twelve hours ago.

So popular opinion decides right and wrong? If it was the popular thing to do to kill massive amounts of people, that would make it also the right thing to do?

No, it’s subjective. Nothing, nothing really decides right or wrong.

So then what is wrong with murder?

All the things that the individual finds wrong with it. Nothing more or less. Personally I’m a situationist, I don’t see a great deal wrong with murder as an act. It’s largely the consequences of it where I start to consider the moral valuation.

Disgusting. I’m so glad I don’t view the world through subjective morality. I’m so glad I don’t see a country that beheads others in a popular fashion, for not thinking like the government says they should, is seen as morally right “to them”. If you have empathy, these things should in the very least strike you as wrong, even if there are differing opinions. Disgusting.

Well Mister High Horse, they do strike me as wrong. It is morally right to them, (sort of, politics.), there is a whole realm of cultural relativity schema that many people holds justifies a things people do unto themselves. I am not a cultural relativist, I tend to push Rights whether people like it or not en masse. I just don’t think the God himself has told me what to do, or that the world is so simple that a given action will always and forever have the same negative outcome.

I get my morals from the Bible. If there is a God, then my morals are actually objective. Can’t prove it, but that’s how it is. I’ve never had a group of people so readily admit to subjective morality. I usually end up trying to explain to people that they do subscribe to subjective morality and that it is awful. With this group, I am having trouble getting that far. I find myself in the quandary of having to explain why genocide is awful to them. It’s as if it is a perfectly acceptable idea, like pouring yourself a bowl of cereal.

Not so quick there. If there is a God he may have had nothing to do with the bible. If there is a God, maybe he made the bible, as a trick to screw with people. The existence of a God alone does nothing to endorse your world view. Then, even deeper, even if there is a god telling you what to do – how is that moral objectivity? What gives him total moral valuation? Nothing, same as anything else. Really big things don’t have the corner on moralizing. Lastly, even if there was the big god of the bible as inferred, that thing is a quagmire of conflicting, often abhorrently brutal, moral schema. One can’t infer a moral hegemony from that alone because it is limited and contradictory.

Hence thousands of years of shifting opinion and valuation on what is the moral system of the Bible. There is nothing objective there, just the pretension of the High and Mighty backing up ever shifting acts and opinions.

So if genocide is supported by law, and HELD by the majority to be right, is it morally right?

You are still implying objective morality! You cannot say “is this morally right/wrong?”, because that is a nonsensical statement. Something is morally right to one person, but morally wrong to another. Something held by the majority to be right does not make something more or less right than another, because it is completely subjective.

I’m so glad I don’t view the world through subjective morality. I’m so glad I don’t see a country that beheads others in a popular fashion, for not thinking like the government says they should, is seen as morally right “to them”. If you have empathy, these things should in the very least strike you as wrong, even if there are differing opinions.

Wow, you have completely no clue about what we think is wrong. You and I agree that we both think issues as general as that are wrong, in our opinion. But you imply the moment we argue others can think of it as the right thing to do, we are the “disgusting” ones. Believing in objective morality does not soothe your thoughts. There will still be murderers out there regardless of your claims about morality. We will disagree with them regardless of your claims about morality.

I said that I think it is disgusting that people think genocide is “morally right for them”.

And we both agree we think that it’s disgusting, but only one of us invokes “objectivity of morals” to soothe their nerves.

If there is a God, then my morals are actually objective.

You don’t need to invoke the religious belief in God to invoke a religious belief in objectivity of morals. You are implying there is some sort of logical conclusion in here, but it isn’t necessary.

You have missed the obvious parallel here: If there is a god, that god’s morals are objective to that god’s followers only.

This is assuming that morality is a product of sentient control and not completely governed by our innate subconsciousness. Otherwise- if morality is merely chemical processing- your stipulation fails miserably. The obvious parallel you drew is a dependent axiom of which requires the precondition of personal regulation over the matter of human morality outside the dictation of circumstantial facets pertaining to realms beyond the human capacity to logically reason. The ethical thing to do is not fundamentally what we do to help each other/ourselves in itself and for itself, but rather evolutionarily induced conformation to natural interference emitted by externalized suitors for altruistic survival. The major distinction is the cause of morality and the correlations sprouting from it- is it a corollary of human reasoning or is it subconscious chemical reactions? If there is a god, then there could very well be an objective morality of which extends to all denominations of people. The noticeable caveat is that, even without a god, this form of objective morality would still be theoretically plausible and thus doesn’t relate necessarily to the nature of the deity in question.

For example, your morals are objective only if you wish to enter heaven. Outside of that scope, they are subjective. Not everyone wishes to enter heaven. I know I don’t.

In this case, morality would be objectively subjective, Yes- your ultimate mandate is to reach heaven or not, but that warrants unanimous comprehension of what is good and wrong of which is still, per se, a highly moot topic without diversion. In fact, “reaching heaven” and the likes are already set in place without the neccesity of divine intervention. Just look around at your everyday decisions and you’ll see what I mean.

You have missed the obvious parallel here: If there is a god, that god’s morals are objective to that god’s followers only.

This is assuming that morality is a product of sentient control and not completely governed by our innate subconsciousness.

It’s not. Often our moral choices are the result of considerable thought. You are describing processes that are outside of moral control, but which are hardwired into our brains, such as sexual orientation.

If there is a god, then there could very well be an objective morality of which extends to all denominations of people. The noticeable caveat is that, even without a god, this form of objective morality would still be theoretically plausible and thus doesn’t relate necessarily to the nature of the deity in question.

True, but my comment was more to correct an oversight in the original statement, where they had missed a third equally likely conclusion.

For example, your morals are objective only if you wish to enter heaven. Outside of that scope, they are subjective. Not everyone wishes to enter heaven. I know I don’t.

In this case, morality would be objectively subjective, Yes- your ultimate mandate is to reach heaven or not, but that warrants unanimous comprehension of what is good and wrong of which is still, per se, a highly moot topic without diversion.

Not really. For MyTie these are set in stone. Therefore in order to most effectively suggest alternatives to them, I have to work entirely within MyTie’s frame of reference.

This is assuming that morality is a product of sentient control and not completely governed by our innate subconsciousness.

If there is a god, then there could very well be an objective morality of which extends to all denominations of people.

Could be, should be, would be. Nobody’s denying possibilities. I, and several others, are denying there is evidence for your “maybes”. Currently, there is no reason to assume morality is objective, but I’ve pointed it out in an earlier post as well. Do you really soothe yourself religiously believing something is “objectively wrong”? Does it change the murder you might be referring to? No, the person still killed, and the other person is still dead. You invoking a god saying it is objectively wrong does not change the result, neither can it change the existing law. It’s entirely self-soothing over that we should religiously believe there is no rational way we can morally think it’s all right to kill.

This is assuming that morality is a product of sentient control and not completely governed by our innate subconsciousness.

If there is a god, then there could very well be an objective morality of which extends to all denominations of people.

Could be, should be, would be. Nobody’s denying possibilities. I, and several others, are denying there is evidence for your “maybes”. Currently, there is no reason to assume morality is objective, but I’ve pointed it out in an earlier post as well. Do you really soothe yourself religiously believing something is “objectively wrong”? Does it change the murder you might be referring to? No, the person still killed, and the other person is still dead. You invoking a god saying it is objectively wrong does not change the result, neither can it change the existing law. It’s entirely self-soothing over that we should religiously believe there is no rational way we can morally think it’s all right to kill.

“Tolerance is the virtue of he with no convictions”

There’s no evidence for this or that, but there is still only one right conclusion and it isn’t agnosticism. In the absence of reason, one should turn to faith alone. Even God was fathomed out of the abysmal void.

A 3 year old boy is murdered, needlessly, by a stranger who gained sexual satisfaction from it.

Those are the facts.

When facing that fact, you can look at the act, and say “It is my opinion that the act was wrong, although it itself is neither right nor wrong, good nor bad.” If you are to look at that act in such a non committed way, it disgusts me. I live in a world where men and women live and die for things which are good beyond their opinions. If someone dies, and their opinion dies with them, what is the point in dieing for anything? I’ve, honestly, never encountered a group of people that took such a self important approach to right and wrong.

A 3 year old boy is murdered, needlessly, by a stranger who gained sexual satisfaction from it.

From my perspective that is horrific, and the man should be strung up, hogtied and dragged naked from the back fender of a car doing 50mph for half an hour. He’ll be good and dead long before the car stops.

From the man’s perspective, what he did was justifiable, as he gained sexual satisfaction. To him it was only a kid, nothing important, and he is feeling pretty good with himself.

Both are intact moral viewpoints. They each correspond to a different set of morals. By acknowledging the integrity of the man’s morals, it is far easier to follow them, in order to catch him, because he will abide by his own moral code in all his behaviors.

So, if the majority of people disagreed with vika, would she be niether more valid, nor more personally valid to society? Would it therefore be acceptable to rape and kill little boys? Explain that one to me in a way that won’t make me want to throw up.

MyTie, in a society, any society, the majority moral viewpoint is the one that typically drives the society. However, not all societies have the same moral viewpoints.

In California, my view would be held by the majority.
In parts of Kentucky, the man’s view would be acceptable to the local community
In Saudi Arabia, something quite similar to the man’s view would form the majority viewpoint.

Each is different, and the closest you’ll get to objective morality is to go along with the majority view in whatever place you are in at the time.

Originally posted by tenco1:If the majority of people felt that it was morally okay to do that, then her opinion would be less personally valid to the majority, but she still would not be objectively right or wrong.

I can’t prove morality is objective, just as you can’t prove that there are no universal truths about right and wrong somewhere out there. However, I cannot accept that it is not objectively right or wrong to rape and murder a 3 year old, or why what is valid to the majority even matters.

If I had never existed, it would still be an invalid opinion on morals that it is a good thing to murder a toddler.

Originally posted by tenco1:You’re just ignoring her personal feelings on that now, aren’t you?

If the choice is between saying “oh yes, the murderer’s opinions are very valid”, and hurting someone’s feelings, then I’m going to be honest and hurt their feelings. I’m not one to hide behind a lie in order to pander to what someone feels. You’re not going to be able to intimidate me with some sort of pushy line about being nice.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »